Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.12.93 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE MINUTES AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 12, 1993 a. December 8, 1992 b. December 22, 1992 c. Findings for Conditional Use Requests from City Parks and Recreation Department and Elm Park Limited, Inc. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 7:00 P.M. Riverside Preliminary Plat b. 7:30 P.M. East Farmington PUD 4. DISCUSSION a. 9:00 P.M. Very Low Density Housing b. Conditional Use Request Bongard Trucking c. Conditional Use Request James and Therese Reisinger d. MUSA Land Area Swap Recommendation e. City Design Standards 5. ADJOURN 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR JANUARY 12, 1993 a. December 8, 1992 b. December 22, 1992 c. Findings for Conditional Use Requests from City Parks and Recreation Department and Elm Park Limited, Inc. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 7:00 P.M. Riverside Preliminary Plat. An 18.5 acre subdivision in the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, immediately north of 208th Street and the new Farmington Middle School. The preliminary plat contains 53 single family lots in an area of the City which is currently zoned R -3. The lots along the north edge of the proposed subdivision are slightly larger than the 10,000 square foot minimum, whereas the other lots tend to be somewhat larger because of the configuration of the streets. Both north /south streets, Devonshire and Dallas Avenues, are fixed because of the location of curb cuts on 208th Street. Dallas Avenue is centered upon the main driveway access to the Middle School. The developer has attempted to make the corner lots larger than those in the middle of blocks to assure an adequate building envelope for each. The only exception to this are the four lots which will begin the blocks in what possibly could become Phase II. Because all of the side lot easement on the east side of these lots do share the easement with adjoining lots, the front width of the building area is 45 feet rather than 55 feet which is available to the average middle of the block lot. An extension of the plat area by 5 to 10 feet would eliminate the discrepancy but this may or may not be possible to accomplish. The planting area for boulevard trees for some reason has all of the trees situated on private property. Staff would recommend that they be relocated within the street rights of way. Also, the planting schedule indicates that 507 of the trees will be two species of Ash. Staff recommends that this be reduced to 25% because of potential disease problems in the future. This will mean the introduction of another street tree species to complete the project. The staff also recommends that the hackberry be used to emphasize intersections and each species should be located in clusters rather than as single lines on one side of the street. The planting plan needs to be redone. The City Engineer, because of the timing of the submittal during his vacation and illness, has not had an opportunity to review the plat. This may not be a problem as the Developer has been unable to arrange for his engineer to evaluate the flooding potential of this site. It is the understanding of staff that a meeting between engineers has been scheduled. If the information is presented prior to the hearing, it will be forwarded to the Commission. One requirement of the City Engineer is likely to be that the temporary turn around at the end of 207th Street shall be paved. The Soil and Water Conservation District has indicated that the northwest area of the proposed plat is a wetland and that an additional area within the north central portion of the plat also contains soils found in a wetland. The areas do not show up on existing City maps but now that they have been identified, the Developer will be required to have them mapped so that the City can decide if they are significant enough to require a shift of 206th'Street West to the south. The Soil and Water Conservation District has indicated that the rear portion of Lots 6, 7 and 8 in Block 1 are definitely affected and possibly small portions of Lots 12 and 13, Block 1 may also be involved. The Developer has been provided with a copy of the Wetland Protection and Zoning Ordinance. Until the wetlands have been identified, the application is not considered to be complete. Staff would suggest that the hearing be continued until the next regular meeting when all relevant information on wetlands and flooding are available. By that time the Engineer will also have had the opportunity to review the material. Recommendation Continue the Public Hearing until the next regular meeting. If the materials are not forthcoming at that time, request that the Developer petition for a delay in deciding the merits of the plat. If the plat is approved, a recommendation should be forwarded to the City Council to also rezone the land from R -3 to R -1. b. 7:30 P.M. East Farmington PUD. A 176.5 acre development proposed in the east 1/2 of Section 32 between County Road 72 and State Trunk Highway 50. The proposed PUD will contain approximately 800 single family dwellings plus an unspecified number of multiple units and property which will be made available to institutional uses to accommodate expansion of South Suburban Medical Center and possible day care facilities, doctor and dental offices. While convenience commercial uses also were considered, the Developer has agreed that existing business uses already fill this need and the concept is built around the premise that residents will shop in downtown Farmington. The land use is dominated by open space involving "vest pocket" parks at the center of each block, parkways along Spruce and Twelfth Streets and the edge drainage way proposed on the east side of the PUD. The block parks are owned by a neighborhood association and will be improved and maintained by it. The open space on the east side is more complex as it will be created to carry storm water runoff from the west half of Section 32 into the Vermillion River. It also will contain the right of way of 14th Street. The remainder will be necessary for the creation of replace- ment wetlands for those that will be removed elsewhere within the PUD. One issue that needs to be addressed is that the City Comprehensive Park Plan calls for neighborhood ballfields within 1/2 mile of all residents. The first phase of the PUD clearly meets this objective because of existing playgrounds at the Middle and Elementary Schools. Later phases would come into compliance if a ballfield could be worked into a City park in the block fronting on the west side of 12th Street Parkway and Locust Street. This site is suggested as it is central to the entire development and would eliminate the need for small children to cross Trunk Highway 3. One overriding principle driving the PUD is the attempt to provide relatively high density housing opportunities close to existing community facilities. This includes schools, parks and the downtown business district. The ballfield question can be answered best by evaluating how far children will bike or walk to recreation areas. The last of the open space are the sixty foot wide parkways that are centered upon Spruce and 12th Streets. These are designed as lineal parks which will be able to handle large quantities of storm water runoff in heavy rainstorms. They are the only areas that are currently considered to be parks until the design of 14th Street is refined. With the parkway system comes a complaint from the Fire Chief about direct access to property on the one way streets. He has requested that all streets cross the parkway rather than the proposed design which blocks access on four streets. The staff has looked at the question and with one exception is not convinced that there is a problem. The blocks are relatively short and the additional street crossings will cut down on the storm water that may be stored within the right of way. The street perhaps that should cross is Hickory Street. This could be accomplished by shortening the boulevard by 200 feet. Other issues involving streets include the lack of a northern extension to Ninth Street which will be available to link directly with Elm Street when the hospital expands into the Thelen property. The Developer has agreed to the extension but has suggested that money should be placed in escrow to pay for the improvement when the connection is made. Elm Street, east of the hospital, also should be extended to 14th Street. The Developer has indicated a willingness to improve the street if the owner would be willing to give it up for the opportunity of gaining two developable lots. That same location also suggests the need for the extension of 14th Street to County Road 72 which could be accomplished once the storm water drainage way has been designed and built. The Developer has agreed that there will be no direct access to Highway 50 from the parcels of land which adjoin it. Larch Street was questioned by staff because it creates a "double frontage" situation for housing located on Maple Street. The Developer has agreed to develop Maple Street between llth and 12th Streets, creating blocks which match those in the rest of the PUD. While the Developer has indicated that the mixed use area will include three story garden apartments with up to 35 units per acre, there is no clear definition as to their placement within the mixed use parcels. The Developer is reluctant to specify the land use further because the neighborhood in the mixed use areas could also attract churches and other hospital related institutional uses. The PUD ordinance is, however, definite in the need for a more specific layout. The last major con- sideration which was mentioned in the discussion of open space areas is the need for more detailed information regarding wetlands. The Wetland Protection Ordinance is now in place and must be followed. The City Council has authorized the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet which will be prepared by the Developer's engineer. It is suggested that the five wetland areas within the PUD need to be defined in order for the Council to determine how much replacement wetland will be required. Once this has been done, the PUD can be more precisely refined to reflect the future wetlands on the site. Recommendation Continue the public hearing until the next regular meeting or at a time that the Developer believes that the missing pieces of information can be supplied. 4. DISCUSSIONS a. Very Low Density Housing proposal for the southwest corner of Farmington The landowners in Section 26, 27, 34 and 35 have been invited to participate in this discussion. Of the calls received, one landowner would prefer to be rezoned for business, another would like to be allocated all of the development rights in his section and another was opposed to the concept. One landowner supported the proposal because it represents a fair allocation of development rights. This particular caller believes that first come, first served distribution of development rights ultimately would break down. The strongest argument for approaching Very Low Density Housing in this manner is that when the time comes for urban development, utilities can be extended past the small clusters of housing without involving excessive costs. b. Conditional Use Request from Craig Bongard to Rebuild an Equipment Maintenance and Storage Building East of County Road 31 The applicant agreed to a time extension for a decision by the Board but has not supplied any information that will aid in the decision making process. Without a plan, it is difficult for the Commission to reach any decision other than denial of the request. c. Conditional Use Request from James and Therese Reisinger to Create an Equipment Maintenance and Storage Use on C -1 Conservation Land East of County Road 31 The applicant agreed to a time extension for a decision by the Board but has not supplied any information that will aid in reaching a decision. Unless a plan is forthcoming, the recommendation will be to deny the request. d. MUSA Land Area Swap Attached is a memo forwarded to the City Council introducing the need to transfer MUSA land for both Riverside and East Farmington. The Council does not have a problem with the proposal but would like a recommendation from the Planning Commission and notification to the landowners involved. e. City Design Standards Revisions The staff has made minor revisions to the ordinance that needs one more review with the Commission before forwarding it to the City Council. The updated version is enclosed. aea, 1. AO., Charles Tooker City Planner